Tow the line.

I wrote this as a fairly hurried response to Mark Lynns' recent addition to "Climate Gate"

The theft and web publication by climate change deniers of private emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is an extremely worrying development in the tortured politics of global warming.

Theft? Everything I’ve read seems unsure if it was a leak or a theft. A security breach, perhaps. I guess Theft has a more provocative tone and immediately insinuates guilt, so that works.

Although high-profile individuals have been targeted and unfairly vilified before – Pennsylvania University's Michael Mann comes to mind, with his "hockey stick" palaeoclimate graph – most of the ire of the denial movement has so far been reserved for big-hitters like Al Gore. Gore can take it. Politics is his job.

Yeah. The hockey stick graph is a joke. And Al Gore is a charlatan. He is pretty much the sole person responsible for getting this “message” out to the public, particularly in the U.S. Right on.

But the "exposure" of private correspondence from a much larger group of scientists – and the out-of-context quotation of certain sentences as "revealing" some hidden subterfuge – suggests a dangerous shift in strategy. Instead of targeting the science communicators (myself included), the deniers are now declaring war on the scientists themselves. Like the creationists they unconsciously mimic, they make no distinction between the political and the scientific sphere – it is open season in both.

Strategy? Targeting? War? People want truth, man.

The CRU (Climate Research Unit) was set up back in the 1970s. Big funding from Rockefellers (that’s banking royalty to you and I) and huge support from the Royal Society. The rabbit hole goes incredibly deep on this one. Club of Rome and other big elitist think tanks (made up of industrialists, diplomats) openly discussed ways to unite mankind through the threat of famine, pollution etc as literally “the best they could come up with” – back in 1972.

As far as they’re concerned now it’s business as usual and just a case of damage control after this scandal – thankfully the years of propaganda and everyday threats of catastrophe seems to have etched its way into the true believers psyche. Hense why these true believers will sometimes, given the right dialectical circumstance, referrer to weather as climate, to further their cause. Oh dear.

Enter stage left the official “Independent Report” of the whole “Climate Gate” scandal. Might be a case of the Fox looking after the chicken hut, again. But we’ll see. Too much rests of this whole farse for anything to fundamentally change.
Science is the new priesthood. Priests never give away all their knowledge to the profane. You just keep on praying the sun will come up…

And the strategy is simple. Given that scientists are one of society's most trusted groups (unlike journalists or politicians), the climate denial movement has begun a battle to undermine public trust in climate scientists themselves. No more will the legions of anonymous researchers who collect and interpret data from meteorological stations, satellites and ice cores be considered above the fray – they now run the risk of personal attacks, exposure of their private lives and vilification.

Why are scientists the most trusted groups? Have you ever read Brave New World?

Here's a video of Aldous Huxley talking about a scientific based government. Science would rule all aspects of your life, eventually.



If all their work (to prove AGW) is based upon the evidence provided in a couple of fundamental papers relating to climate change, only for this data to then be thrown into question because of the lack of peer related reviews (independent ones mind) and lack openess of the raw data then yes, I imagine the scientists who go along with it do run the risk or exposure or vilification. I’m just hypothesizing here. You don't need a weathergirl to know which way the wind blows.

It is important to understand the significance of this. Scientists are not politicians. They are not used to communicating publicly. They trust in their objectivity, the objectivity of their peers, and the rigour of only citing work published in learned journals. They will have private views, but are very used to keeping these out of their work – indeed the entire scientific method is based on conducting research which can be replicated by peers in order to check its accuracy and objectivity.

Like the 9/11 conspiracy theories before it, the global warming conspiracy is palpably absurd. The idea that scientists have teamed up with governments and the United Nations to foist some kind of social control project on an unwary public is laughable – it would need conspiratorial activities involving thousands of people, for a start..

from the UN’s website:

"The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change. U.N Website

It’s not a case of them teaming up – they’re one and the same. The big boys give huge grants to governments who hand in to the research institutes, set up by & for big boys. They're talking big and long term here.


None of this would matter if the public weren't fooled. But they are. Polls show climate "scepticism" is rising, perhaps even to a majority position, on both sides of the Atlantic. Presumably public trust in climate change scientists is falling commensurately. This will in turn undermine consensus in mitigating climate change – which is of course the very intention of the deniers in the first place.

We’re always being fooled. I’m personally just slightly hesitant to push through international legislation which effectively turns what I breathe out into a pollutant.

Some of the scientists whose private emails have been exposed write for the blog RealClimate, where they argue that the revealed correspondence shows "no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy ... no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data" and so on. But as George Marshall, a writer on climate change who specialises in the psychology of denial on the issue, puts it: "This is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context."

Orchestrated by whom? The requirement for truth and honesty about where this whole agenda is leading in years to come – at the very least in terms of international legislation? No doubt there’s a whole lot of political ground at stake but this whole debacle should rise above the usual left-right prejudices we’re indoctrinated with. I don’t understand why left/liberal = climate change is real! Where as right/conservative = they must be “anti” climate change. That’s the deal we’re presented with the majority of the time.

If the lesson for scientists is that the era when they can practice their trade entirely separately from the rest of society is well and truly over, the lesson for environmentalists is equally harsh. Having spent years (once again, myself included) reminding the public of the horrifying potential consequences of climate change, and demanding major lifestyle change on the part of ordinary people, it seems that our message is not just falling on deaf ears – but may even be counterproductive.


It’s never been entirely separate from the rest of society.

We have to start accentuating the positive, rather than constantly invoking apocalypse. Getting off fossil fuels is a necessity, but that does not mean that people's lives must be made harder or more austere. Forget all the "war economy" analogies, locally grown jam and appeals to save old clothes. Our message needs to be a forward-looking one of hope, prosperity and technological progress.

Interesting choice of words. “Invoking apocalypse” is exactly what all the government funded propaganda has been doing. Calling down the powers and jealous gods of the sky to punish the ignorant masses for living too unscrupulously and being “useless eaters”.

We also have to stop trying to make people feel guilty. No, flying isn't analogous to child abuse. Polar bears won't drop from the sky. Constantly accusing normal people of immoral behaviour is perhaps a way to get noticed, but not a clever way to win converts. And the normal people in question, upset at being accused of killing babies every time they step onto Ryanair, will be very susceptible to the first conspiracy theorist who whispers in their ear: "Don't worry, it's not true."

Decided the guilt factor doesn’t work then? Did you remind your selves of the Catholic Priests who literally drained the peasants of any wealth via guilt? This is the church of the new secular religion and you must pay up.

I’m sure with a quick regrouping of all the right think tanks, they’ll be a lot more monetary and tax incentives introduced to the whole scam, of course, for the benefit of “the people”.

That last line was fairly telling. A lot of this issue centers around doubt and worry, I’d even go as far as to say it thrives of it. People can then start worrying about things they don’t actually understand – never mind no jobs and rent going up! Such is life for a worrier! But as long as big daddy government is taking care of it and uncle bank lend their guiding hands, we’re all safe. Or so goes to fairy tale.

Bottom line is – don’t be a skeptic or a denier, you simply will not fit in.